5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Băbeni, Vâlcea.
6.  On 1 March 1999 the applicant was detained pending trial in Colibaşi Prison.
7.  By a decision of 9 June 1999 the Vîlcea County Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to seventeen years’ imprisonment. The decision became final on 4 February 2000 by a judgment of the Court of Cassation. The applicant served out his sentence in Colibaşi Prison.
8.  The applicant stated that the cells were squalid and overcrowded and the smell was unbearable because of the dirty sanitary facilities.
9.  His clothes and bedding were full of lice, which caused him blisters and wounds because he had to scratch constantly.
10.  Between January and March 2002 he shared cell 316 with six other detainees and no heating was provided in the cell.
11.  During the summer the water was cut off between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. although the temperature in the cell was above 40 degrees Celsius. Also, the detainees were supplied with water from insanitary plastic containers.
12.  The window grille was fitted with a net which prevented proper ventilation and made breathing in the cell extremely difficult as a result of the overcrowded conditions. Also, the electricity was cut off between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.
13.  At unspecified times in 2005 the applicant shared a cell with T.I., a fellow inmate who was HIV-positive and who cut his fingers several times. However, in spite of the increased danger of infection the cell and the food receptacles were not disinfected.
14.  Lastly, the food contained impurities and waste and he also complains that there were no activities.
(b)  The Government
15.  Between February 2001 and May 2003 the Colibaşi Prison authorities initiated a general reconstruction and maintenance programme for detention Sections II, III and IV of the prison. Because of these works the detainees were relocated from one section to another, which might have caused overcrowding in the cells.
16.  The reconstruction and maintenance programme resulted in the building of two new prison Sections, no. 6 and no.7. They included cells 612 and 711. Each of the cells was equipped with eight beds, two sinks with mirrors and shelves, a bathtub and a separate toilet. Each cell measured 17.2 sq. m. The rooms were 3.05 metres high. The lavatory measured 5.77 sq. m, the toilet room 1.57 sq. m. and the storage room 1.65 sq. m. The window of each of the rooms was 1.20 x 1.20 metres with panes of glass, hermetically sealed. The storage and the toilet room were each equipped with a 0.6 x 0.6-metre window.
17.  Cells 203 and 205 located in Section II of the prison are identical and are each equipped with thirty-six beds, six sinks fitted with mirrors and shelves, six shower baths and four separate toilets. Each cell was 57.85 sq. m in area and 4.2 m high, the lavatory was 8.55 sq. m., the toilet room was 1.02 sq. m and the storage room was 10.83 sq. m. The shower baths and toilets were located in a 7.83 sq. m. separate room. The cells each had three windows of 1 x 1.5 m, hermetically sealed. The shower, toilet and lavatory rooms each had 0.6 x 0.6 m windows.
18.  Cell 423, in which the applicant was also detained, was renovated to European standards and was not overcrowded, according to prison records. Nor did the records indicate that any of the other prison cells were overcrowded.
19.  No information could be provided in respect of the number of detainees sharing cells with the applicant or whether the applicant had had to share a room with an HIV-positive detainee, on the ground that the relevant documents had been removed from the archives and destroyed following the expiry of the statutory time-limit for archiving such information.
20.  The cells, the sanitary facilities and the main rooms of the prison underwent maintenance work at least once a year. The metal beds and the windows were repaired at the same time. Drinking water was continuously available: it was cut off only when maintenance work had to be done, and hot water for bathing was available twice a week.
21.  Heating was supplied for six and a half hours a day. After this hot air was circulated by pumps for another four to five hours.
22.  The quality of the ingredients used to prepare food was checked daily by the prison warden, the prison doctor and a designated prisoner, and the applicant was provided with a special diet appropriate to his medical condition.
23.  According to the documents available in the applicant’s prison file he was involved in a number of social reintegration activities with positive results, and was rewarded fifty-five times with extended visitation rights, packages and revocation of disciplinary sanctions. He took part in poetry, logic, football, chess and table tennis contests and had poems and essays published in the prison paper.
24.  On 15 March 2006 the applicant’s right to daily exercise was extended by one hour to a total of three hours on a psychiatrist’s advice.
25.  During his detention he was repeatedly given other responsibilities, such as editing material for the prison newspaper, acting as representative for cells 316 and 610, keeping attendance records, and distributing newspapers and magazines. He was rewarded four times for dedication.
26.  On 24 November 2003 the applicant addressed a request to the authorities of Colibaşi Prison for a stamp to be put on a letter which he intended to send to the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) and which contained his application.
27.  On 26 November 2003 the authorities refused to stamp the applicant’s letter, on the ground that the applicant had had the necessary amount of money in his account but had spent it all before the date of his request for a stamp.
28.  The written refusal of the prison authorities reads as follows: “I propose not to approve the detainee’s request, because he had the necessary amount of money but spent it on shopping. The last remaining money in the account was spent four days before he made the request”.
29.  On 4 December 2003, the applicant requested a copy of his written application for a stamp.
30.  On 13 December 2003 the authorities of Colibaşi Prison dismissed his request as unsubstantiated, on the ground that an application could have been lodged with the Court only after exhaustion of the available domestic remedies and within six months of the final court decision. Also, if the applicant brought proceedings before the Court they would provide it with all the pertinent documents.
31.  On 3, 19 and 27 May and 9 June 2004 the applicant addressed requests to the Colibaşi Prison authorities for photocopies of documents, including various complaints and court judgments; the requests were refused. He asked to be informed in writing of the reason for the refusal but did not receive any answer. After repeated requests and complaints he was provided with the requested photocopies on 25 June 2004.
32.  The applicant’s requests for stamps and envelopes, made on 22 July, 18 September and 28 October 2003, 26 January, 12 October and 9 November 2004, and 23 February, 15 June and 3 October 2007, were granted and the applicant was provided with the requested items. Also, the applicant’s requests lodged with the prison authorities on 19 December 2006, 15 February and 3 October 2007, and 21 January 2008, for copies of documents to be posted to the Court, were approved and the documents were mailed.
33.  From September 2006 to date the applicant lodged twenty requests with the prison authorities for copies of various documents. They were all granted.
34.  The applicant stated that while in detention he developed a liver and stomach condition, kidney failure and chronic laryngitis as a result of the conditions of detention, bad food and impure drinking water. He acknowledges that he received some treatment for his condition, however the treatment lacked consistency and eventually it was stopped. He stated that although his family helped him finance the required treatment his health was permanently damaged. He also stated that his requests for medication had been refused, the reason given being lack of funds.
35.  On 24 January 2003 the applicant brought proceedings before the Argeş County Court seeking to be released from his sentence on medical grounds.
36.  By a judgment of 25 March 2003 the Argeş County Court dismissed the applicant’s action on the ground that according to the medical expert report in the file the applicant’s medical condition, including his liver condition, could be treated in a prison hospital. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against this decision.
37.  According to the applicant’s medical file, from the date of his imprisonment he was regularly examined by doctors, his health was monitored and he was prescribed and administered medication during the course of his detention.
38.  On 11 May 2004 the Colibaşi Prison authorities drafted a medical report concerning the applicant’s general state of health. According to the report the applicant was suffering from a liver and kidney condition, although he had been declared clinically healthy at the time of his imprisonment on 1 March 1999. His illness could however be treated in the prison hospital and the applicant had been provided with treatment prescribed by specialist doctors. From March 2003, when he was diagnosed with the liver condition, he was provided with adequate food for his illness. The report stated that, although the applicant’s disease was discovered after he had been detained, the exact moment he contracted it could not be established. According to the report the applicant was suffering from chronic diseases which were continuing to progress, often without symptoms. Diagnosis would have been possible only by thorough medical examination, which had not been done at the time of his imprisonment. Lastly, the report concluded that the applicant’s illness had been caused by a number of external factors, including lack of adequate nourishment and alcohol consumption prior to his imprisonment and was not connected with the food he received in detention.
39.  In view of his state of health, on 25 February 2004 the applicant lodged a request with B.G., the judge responsible for the execution of sentences, for a water heater so that he could prepare herbal teas in his cell. His request was dismissed on 26 February 2004 on the ground that the specialist doctor had not recommended that the applicant use herbal tea as part of his treatment.
40.  On 25 May 2006 the Argeş Commission for People with Disabilities diagnosed the applicant with a Category 2 disability on account of his pulmonary fibrosis.
41.  On 26 May 2006 the applicant brought proceedings before the Argeş County Court seeking release from his prison sentence on medical grounds.
42.  By a judgment of 28 November 2006 the Argeş County Court dismissed the applicant’s action, on the ground that he had twice refused to have a medical expert assessment and afterwards he had withdrawn his request. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against the judgment.
43.  According to a medical expert report of 23 July 2007 carried out by the Argeş Pension Rights Office, the applicant was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis and a personality disorder. According to the medical report the applicant had been an employee of the Oltchim Chemical Plant in Râmnicu-Vâlcea and had repeatedly been exposed to toxic fumes. For two years prior to the date of the report the applicant had been experiencing several symptoms of pulmonary fibrosis, including, inter alia, the sensation of a constricted thorax and physical anaemia.
44.  On 29 August 2007 the Argeş Pension Rights Office issued a decision concerning the applicant’s ability to work on the basis of the findings of the medical expert report of 23 July 2007. According to the decision the applicant was suffering from a Category 2 work disability.
45.  A medical examination was carried out on 9 December 2009. Between 17 May 2007 and 9 June 2009 the applicant was hospitalised five times in Colibaşi Prison Hospital and he received treatment for his medical problems. Also, at the time of the examination he had been prescribed neuroleptic treatment, which he was refusing to take. He was also suffering from a Category 3 work disability.
46.  During 2004 and 2006 the applicant made numerous complaints concerning conditions of detention, including allegations of poor medical treatment.
47.  On 4 February 2004 the applicant brought proceedings against the authorities of Colibaşi Prison as a result of the prison authorities’ refusal to issue him with a stamp for an envelope addressed to the Court, the quality of the food, overcrowding, lack of proper diet and lack of treatment for his medical conditions. He relied on Government Emergency Ordinance 56/2003 on the execution of prison sentences.
48.  On 26 February 2004 the National Prison Authority investigated the applicant’s complaints lodged on 4 February 2004 and found, inter alia, that the applicant’s requests from 24 November and 4 December 2003 had been dismissed by reasoned decisions. Moreover, from 12 April 2002 the applicant had been detained in the new Section IV of the prison, which had been opened in April 2002 and built in accordance with European norms. Furthermore, from 6 June 2002 the applicant had been detained in cell 423 and the available statistical data showed that no overcrowding had been recorded in that cell since 2 March 2003. The report does not contain details of the number of detainees housed in cell 423, the size of the cell or the conditions in it prior to 2 March 2003.
49.  On 15 April 2004 the applicant was allegedly told to report to General B. of the former General Prisons Authority and forced to state that he would withdraw his complaint against the Colibaşi Prison authorities on the ground that the applicant was now requesting to be transferred to another prison in order to work.
50.  The applicant’s statement reads as follows: “ state that before the Piteşti District Court I have a case against the Colibaşi Prison authorities concerning ill-treatment, illness caused by very poor food and refusal to provide me with a stamp for a letter addressed to the Court, on the ground that I had money. I withdraw my complaints for the following reasons: the food has improved and I want to be transferred to Mărgineni Prison in order to work in the factory, as I have a long sentence and I want to earn money”. In July, October and December 2004 the applicant was transferred three times to Mărgineni Prison to attend hearings in proceedings he was a party to.
51.  On 29 April 2004 the Piteşti District Court acknowledged that the applicant had withdrawn his complaint.
52.  On 26 April 2004 the applicant was informed, following a letter addressed by him to the Romanian President, that his complaint about the conditions of his detention had been forwarded to the National Prisons Authority for investigation. The latter informed the applicant that his complaints had not been upheld.
53.  The applicant stated that he was constantly under threat and psychological pressure from the prison administration. In particular, Captain C.A. (head of Section IV of the prison) and Lieutenant N.A. (head of the re-education department) repeatedly threatened him with serious consequences if he continued to lodge complaints about the conditions of his detention. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant lodged any complaints against C.A. and N.A.
54.  On 22 March 2006 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Argeş Prosecutor’s Office against the Colibaşi Prison authorities, alleging torture and inhuman treatment on account of the conditions of detention. He argued that the food was inadequate for his medical condition; the cells were overcrowded, poorly lit and cold, with no running water during the summer, and that the transport conditions were inadequate. After evidence was heard from him the Argeş Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant on 18 April 2006 that his complaint had been referred to the National Prisons Authority.
55.  On 23 May 2006 the National Prisons Authority informed the applicant that his complaints had not been upheld. Nevertheless, the applicant stated that the National Prisons Authority had failed to hear him and to carry out an inspection of his cell and of the prison wing.
56.  Numerous similar complaints were also sent to various other authorities, such as the Romanian Parliament and the Human Rights Committee of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies; several letters were sent to members of the above-mentioned committee and the Delegation of the European Commission in Romania. The applicant’s complaints were referred to the National Prisons Authority, which did not uphold any of the allegations.
57.  On 18 June 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Piteşti County Court against the Colibaşi Prison authorities about inhuman and degrading conditions of detention. The applicant complained that the overcrowded conditions, inappropriate food, lack of appropriate medical treatment, lack of drinking water during the day, extreme heat in his cell, overcrowded conditions of transport to court hearings and lack of exercise had damaged his health. Further, he argued that he had been forced to abandon his Christian Orthodox religion on the ground that he was not allowed to attend religious services in the prison’s Orthodox church.
58.  By a final judgment of 27 September 2007 the Piteşti District Court decided, on the basis of the provisions of Law no. 275/2006 (“the Execution of Sentences Act 2006”), to refer the applicant’s case to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences attached to Colibaşi Prison.
59.  On 26 September 2007 the prison authorities proceeded to investigate the applicant’s complaints of 18 June 2006 in respect of the conditions of detention. They visited cell 204, where the applicant was detained, and according to the record of the visit drafted on the same day they found that the cell measured 10.02 m long by 5.65 m wide and 4.23 m high. The room had forty-five beds and housed thirty-six detainees. The authorities also found that eight detainees had attested to the quality of the food between January and September 2007.
60.  On 6 November 2007 the applicant was heard by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences attached to Colibaşi Prison. At the hearing the applicant signed a declaration stating that he would like to withdraw his complaint of his own free will and without being pressured to do so.
61.  In his letter of 25 January 2008, the applicant informed the Court that prior to his hearing before the judge responsible for the execution of sentences he had been contacted by the prison warden and threatened with serious consequences if he failed to withdraw the complaint. Lastly, at the hearing before the judge he was allegedly under psychological pressure from the judge himself, to state in writing that he wished to withdraw the complaint. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant lodged any complaints against the prison warden or the judges responsible for the execution of sentences.
62.  On 18 March 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of sentences attached to the Colibaşi Prison concerning the detention conditions in cell 205, where he was detained at the time. He claimed that the room did not have the necessary facilities for the detainees to store their food and personal belongings, the volume of air for each detainee was insufficient and the room was infested with cockroaches as a result of the poor state of hygiene.
63.  On 19 March 2008 the applicant was summoned before the judge responsible for the execution of sentences attached to Colibaşi Prison for a hearing in respect of his complaints. In a written statement submitted to the judge the same day, the applicant withdrew his complaint without giving any reasons.
64.  On 24 March 2010 the National Prisons Authority dismissed the applicant’s complaint concerning his inability to work addressed to the President of Romania and referred it to the National Prisons Authority for investigation. The National Prisons Authority grounded their decision on the medical report of 8 December 2009 classifying the applicant as unfit to work on account of his medical condition.
65.  In a letter of 20 May 2011 the applicant informed the Court that he has been released from Colibaşi Prison on 14 May 2011.
66.  By a final judgment of 12 November 2004 the Vâlcea County Court dismissed as ill-founded the action brought by the applicant against third parties seeking to contest the enforcement of the award of civil damages granted by the domestic courts to third parties following the applicant’s conviction for murder. The court held that the enforcement proceedings had been lawful.
67.  By a final judgment of 13 July 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed as ill-founded the applicant’s action seeking a stay of execution of his sentence for family reasons, citing a need to supervise one of his daughters, as she was exhibiting inappropriate social behaviour and had dropped out of school. On the basis of a social investigation and expert reports the court found that the applicant’s daughters had been placed under the care and supervision of the applicant’s parents, where they were being properly looked after. The court ruled that continuing with the execution of the applicant’s sentence would not have any consequences for his family, as the applicant had abandoned his daughters in 1997 after the death of their mother and had moved in with another woman, whom he later murdered. The Court ruled that the applicant had neither the child-rearing skills nor the moral authority to contribute to the improvement of his daughter’s upbringing.
68.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant brought a second set of proceedings seeking a stay of execution for family reasons.
69.  By a judgment of 21 February 2006 the Piteşti Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s action on the ground that according to the social assessment carried out by the authorities the applicant’s family did not have any material or health-related problems, his daughters were being properly cared for by the applicant’s mother, and his younger daughter had started going to school again and was a good student. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against the judgment.
70.  By a final judgment of 18 January 2006 the Vâlcea County Court dismissed as ill-founded the applicant’s criminal complaint with civil claims brought against the journalist M.D. for insult following a press article written by the third party reporting the murder committed by the applicant. The domestic court held that the third party had informed the general public in an objective and professional way about the crime committed by the applicant and had relied on the evidence produced by the preliminary investigation carried out by the police, without referring to any false or compromising statements. Also, the applicant had been convicted of the crime reported in the article, and sentenced by a final court judgment after a public criminal trial. Furthermore, the third party exercised her right to freedom of speech understood in the context of the freedom of the press and observed the citizens’ constitutional right to be informed about events with a major social impact.